←back to thread

506 points imakwana | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.287s | source
Show context
nomilk ◴[] No.43748834[source]
The surprise here is how little of an effect it has. Deactivating facebook makes you only 1/16th of one standard deviation happier. And instagram even less. And this was measured during elections, when the effect is likely to be greatest.

Kinda crazy that the magnitude is so small! (my next [admittedly rather cynical] thought is "who funded this?")

replies(13): >>43748884 #>>43748905 #>>43748936 #>>43748945 #>>43748990 #>>43749080 #>>43749338 #>>43749527 #>>43750904 #>>43751816 #>>43752078 #>>43752906 #>>43754629 #
safety1st ◴[] No.43748905[source]
I think this is an important and often overlooked phenomenon actually. Studies of Internet engagement are filled with these skewed distributions that follow something like a Pareto principle, or I've heard it termed the 90-9-1 distribution in engagement where 90% of users just lurk a bit, 9% contribute casually, and then 1% are contributing like half of the content on the platform.

It would follow logically that whatever kind of brain rot social media causes, would affect 1% of the population very dramatically, another 9% somewhat more noticeably, and then there would be this vast ocean of people who are only marginally aware/affected. From the perspective of online activity they appear to not even exist.

This always seems counterintuitive to the 9% or the 1% (and just by commenting we're already in one of those demogs). But there's lots of data out there supporting these skewed distributions in online activity.

replies(1): >>43749051 #
bigbacaloa ◴[] No.43749051[source]
These percentages are similar to those that one sees for alcohol consumption or problematic gambling.

The business model of the casinos and the drug dealers and the alcohol venders is the same - you need a huge pool of unproblematic recreational users to find the problematic users who generate the bulk of your profits.

The same model works for video games and social media.

replies(2): >>43749928 #>>43750557 #
potato3732842 ◴[] No.43750557[source]
I really hate this projecting of the software gaming industry's behavior back into the "original" vices.

The casino, liquor store and drug dealer all make the same margin regardless of who they're selling to. If anything the problem users are more likely to cause problems for them so they'd rather make the money on casual users and scale.

Having your whole operation be basically a wash except for all the money from a few people with problems is fairly unique to digital gaming and the software industry.

replies(3): >>43753305 #>>43753754 #>>43753772 #
1. zeroonetwothree ◴[] No.43753754[source]
The top 10% of drinkers consume the majority of alcohol. Their average consumption is over 10 drinks per day, which I think clearly suggestions a problem. I think it's hard to imagine that losing >50% of revenue wouldn't matter to sellers.

Gambling is also very skewed. Studies place it something like 5% of in person gamblers accounting for 50% of profits or 1% for online gambling. I would guess for sports betting it's similar.